Stock v. Fife (1982)

See, e.g., Payton, 512 F.Supp. at 1036 (recognizing that profit sharing and joint control are central to a joint venture); Stock v. Fife, 13 Mass.App.Ct. 75 , 430 N.E.2d 845, 847-48 (1982) (absent joint control, a common (pecu-niaxy) interest is not enough to establish a joint enterprise).

See, e.g., Payton, ___ ____ ______ 512 F. Supp. at 1036 (recognizing that profit sharing and ___ joint control are central to a joint venture); Stock v. _____ Fife, 430 N.E.2d 845, 847-48 (Mass. App. Ct. 1982) (absent ____ joint control, a common (pecuniary) interest is not enough to establish a joint enterprise).

See Stock v. Fife, 430 N.E.2d 845 , 849 n.10 (Mass. App. Ct. 1982) (“mere presence of the particular defendant at the commission of the [tort], or his failure to object to it, is not enough to charge him with responsibility”).

Stock v. Fife, 13 Mass.App.Ct. 75 , 82 n.10 (1982) (“[T]he doctrine appears to be reserved for application to facts which manifest a common plan to commit a tortious act where the participants know of the plan and its purpose and take affirmative steps to encourage the achievement of the result”).

See e.g., Cully v. Bianca, 186 Cal. App. 3d 1172, 1178 , 231 Cal. Rptr. 279, 282-83 (1986) (other than passengers’ accompaniment of driver after they obtained and drank tequila, the plaintiff pointed to no facts indicating that the passengers gave substantial assistance and encouragement to the driver); Stock v. Fife, 13 Mass. App. 75, 82, 430 N.E.2d 845, 849-50 (1982), review denied, 385 Mass. 1103 , 441 N.E.2d 1043 (1982) (facts did not permit recovery under section 876 wh…

See also Stock v. Fife, 13 Mass.App.Ct. 75 , 82 n. 10 (1982) (“In the.tort field, the doctrine appears to be reserved for application to facts which, manifest a common plan to commit a tortious act where the participants know of the plan and its purpose and take affirmative steps to encourage the achievement of the result”).

Mays v. Ridenhour, 248 Kan. 919 , 811 P.2d 1220, 1231-34 (1991); Stock v. Fife, 13 Mass.App.Ct. 75 , 430 N.E.2d 845, 849 (1982); Barnes v. McGough, 623 A.2d 144, 145 (Me.1993); Lind v. Slowinski, 450 N.W.2d 353, 357 (Minn.App.1990); Sloan v. Fauque, 239 Mont. 383 , 784 P.2d 895, 896 (1989); Blow v. Shaughnessy, 88 N.C.App. 484 , 364 S.E.2d 444, 447 (1988); Rael v. Cadena, 93 N.M. 684 , 604 P.2d 822, 823 (App.1979); Herman v. Wesgate, 94 A.D.2d 938 , 464 N.Y.S.2d 315, 316 (19…

We note the observation of a Massachusetts court that an agreement regarding the route to be taken on a trip is a "factor[] which ha[s] traditionally been considered sufficient to establish such a right of control.” Stock v. Fife, 13 Mass.App. 75 , 430 N.E.2d 845, 848 (1982). 7 .

The remaining facts do not show that Burger’s conduct constituted a ‘substantial factor in causing the resulting tort.’ Restatement, 4 Torts § 876, comment on clause (b). ...” (Id. at p. 859.) (Accord Stock v. Fife (1982) 13 Mass.App. 75 [ 430 N.E.2d 845, 849-850, fn. 10 ]; see also Cecil v. Hardin (Tenn. 1978) 575 S.W.2d 268, 272-273 .) Prior to oral argument we requested plaintiffs identify for us what additional facts relevant to the “concerted action” theory they could a…

As the facts found disclosed that the defendant, Edward Nalewanski, was working; was not in or on the premises; and, was unaware that his female co-lessee was carelessly smoking in bed, he did not have an equal.right, then and there, “to direct and control her conduct concerning her act that caused or contributed to the causation of injury.” See Stock v. Fife, 13 Mass. App. Ct. 75 at p. 79 (1982), Adams v. Dunton, 284 Mass. 63, 67 (1933).

As the facts found disclosed that the defendant, Edward Nalewanski, was working; was not in or on the premises; and, was unaware that his female co-lessee was carelessly smoking in bed, he did not have an equal right, then and there, “to direct and control her conduct concerning her act that caused or contributed to the causation of injury.” See Stock v. Fife, 13 Mass. App. Ct. 75 at p. 79 (1982); Adams v. Dunton, 284 Mass. 63, 67 (1933).

The Massachusetts courts have found “joint enterprises” where participants in an activity “ha[ve] an equal right to direct and control the conduct of the other[s] concerning acts or omissions which cause, or contribute to the causation of, injury.” Adams v. Dunton, 284 Mass. 63, 67 , 187 N.E. 90, 92 (1933) (duck hunting); see also Stock v. Fife, 13 Mass.App.Ct. 75, 78 , 430 N.E.2d 845, 847 (1982) (joint enterprise in automobile context requires (1) agreement (express or impl…

Restatement (Second) Torts § 491 (1965); see generally Stock v. *210 Fife, 13 Mass.App.Ct. 75, 78 , 430 N.E.2d 845 (1982).

See, e.g., Cully v. Bianca, 5 186 Cal.App.3d 1172, 1178 , 231 Ca[l].Rptr. 279, 282-83 (1986) (other than passengers’ accompaniment of driver after they obtained and drank tequila, the plaintiff pointed to no facts indicating substantial assistance and encouragement to the driver) ... *434 Stock v. Fife, 13 Mass.App. 75 , 82 n. 10, 430 N.E.2d 845 , 849-50 n. 10, review denied, 385 Mass. 1103 , 441 N.E.2d 1043 (1982) (facts did not permit recovery under section 876 where there…

See, e.g., Stock v. Fife, 13 Mass.App. at 82 n. 10, 430 N.E.2d at 849 -850 n. 10; Olson v. Ische, 343 N.W.2d at 289 ; Clayton v. McCullough, 448 Pa.Super. at 131 -132 n. 1, 670 A.2d at 713 n. 1 (all of which found the facts insufficient to set forth a cause of action under section 876(a) where the passengers and drivers voluntarily consumed alcohol and the passengers merely accompanied the drivers at the time of the accidents).

See, e.g., Stock v. Fife, 13 Mass.App.Ct. 75 , 83 n.10 (1982).

See Stock v. Fife, 13 Mass.App.Ct. 75 , 82 n. 10 (1982) (despite a common plan among friends to drink alcohol while driving to and from a nightclub, no joint liability from the mere presence of the defendant in the car when the driver ran a red light and struck another vehicle); Kyte v. Philip Morris, Inc., 408 Mass. 162, 167-68 (1990) (no proof that the defendant cigarette manufacturer gave substantial assistance to a store’s sale of cigarettes to minors or knew that the st…

Nat’l Trust Bank, 94 F.3d 721, 730 (1st Cir. 1996); see also Stock v. Fife, 13 Mass.App.Ct. 75 , 82 n.10 (1982) (the doctrine of aiding and abetting “appears to be reserved for application to facts which manifest a common plan to commit a tortious act where the participants know of the plan and take affirmative steps to encourage the achievement of the result”).

See *650 generally Stock v. Fife, 13 Mass. App. Ct. 75 (1982), and authorities therein collected and discussed. b.